See you leftie!

It's good to see Za-Nu Lab being hoist with its own petard:

I don't speak Glaswegian: Labour chief in racism row after 'Can you translate that' remark to Scottish activist

Will Russia invade Scotland?

Jeff Nyquist's latest piece is interesting:

The Russian intelligence services have long tracked economic, financial and demographic changes in the United States. Russian analysts know that certain trends lead to political crisis. Such trends include ethnic balkanization, an ideological split in the ruling class, rising indebtedness, economic collapse, and declining moral standards. A country like the United States is ripe for civil war. If this should happen, foreign powers would intervene and the country would be split along geographical lines: California and the West would fall under Chinese control, Texas and the south would go to Mexico, and Russia would lay claim to Alaska. “It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska,” says Panarin. “It was part of the Russian empire for a long time.”

Those symptoms seem remarkably familiar to us in Britain, do they not?

Ethnic balkanisation is going to be a huge problem in the UK. And I'm thinking of Bradford, not Bannockburn. The economic and moral problems are just as significant here as in the US. I am certainly not the only blogger who fears civil war in this country. It's not at all clear who would win a battle fought between the state and the people. Or rather between the tax-consumers and the taxpayers. Scotland would not be able to sit that one out.

Although I do have some sympathy with the cause of Scottish independence I find the SNP's old-time anti-NATO stance to be worrying. The Freedom and Whisky master plan remains valid. These islands need to be defended collectively against foreign aggressors. It's very naive to think that for us all wars are in the past. If the Russians take Alaska, why not Aberdeen? And we don't even have Sarah Palin...

Liberalism

Neil Craig writes about the "Liberal" Democrat conference:

Taken all in all the LibDems Conference get their funding overwhelmingly from the state, some via middlemen. This perhaps explains why all of the motions under discussion involve more regulation, government spending &/or taxes & none of them endorse anything the founders of liberalism would have recognised as such.

The trouble is that it's not only the "Liberals" who are illiberal, that's true of all of the mainstream parties here in Scotland. The same's the case almost everywhere else of course. Except, that is, on the Internet. It's like a parallel universe out there. Politicians, newspaper journalists and television presenters are running around like headless chickens with no clue as to how to deal with the economic crisis. But the truth is out there.

Things are quite different from the recession of the 1970's, which coincided with my discovery of libertarianism and Austrian School economics. Back then one had to be extraordinarily lucky to come across the likes of Mises, Hayek and Rothbard. Now correct explanations of why the crisis arose are just a few clicks away. But still the establishment doesn't get it. Or perhaps doesn't want to. I wonder if we're going to see one of those paradigm shifts after which everyone will be claiming to have known what was going on all along.

The Rule of Law and how to protect it

The Belmont Club is my favourite blog. It is far better written and more informative than almost anything in the "Mainstream Media".

"Mainstream"? For how long?

I've been reading a fascinating thread on the outcomes that may be expected from the recent socialist takeover of the United States. The Belmont Club is written by Richard Fernandez, a veteran of the Philippine struggles against tyranny.

He writes:

The mistake most amateurs make when faced with a crisis that may involve violence, etc is to become obsessed with underground activity, illegal actions, etc. Bringing down even a dictator is 95% legal organizing and 5% clandestine work. The reason for this is that most people are too scared or unwilling to break the law and rightly so. So the most effective resistance to tyranny happens when you take the law at its word and demand your rights. Eventually a real tyrant must either yield or show his true colors. We used this ploy time and again to force the crisis. It’s always a lose-lose for the dictator; and an aggregate win for the rebels. I must say though, that the fact that you are acting legally doesn’t mean you are risk-free. If things get bad, there’s really no distinction between acting legally and acting clandestinely because the dictator doesn’t split hairs.

But returning to 21st century America, the only advice I can give is to maximally use the liberties allowed under the law and the Constitution. There’s a lot of space there and I believe it has hardly been used. From the courts, to local politics, to media campaigns, to civil disobedience — there are lots of levers yet to be pulled. I think it would be immoral for anyone to go all apocalyptic on the Republic and take to the hills like some kind of militia group, besides being impractical, because there are lots of things that have yet to be pushed to their fullest legal extent. But there’s another reason for exhausting all the remedies under the Constitution. Afterward.

It will be a hollow to gain a political victory at the cost of destroying the framework you were trying to preserve. One day there will be another party, another political movement, another set of views in Washington. And on that day you want the Constitution whole and inviolate; because that scrap of parchment represents a hard won set of rules which by common consent defines legitimacy.

We are in the path of the storm. Men of goodwill should get involved; they should prepare to pay some price for their involvement. But for the moment, it’s all hands on deck and none below.

Richard is correct. As much as we may want to "string 'em all up" (and justifiably so), we've still got other opportunities available.

As Mr Fernandez says:

take the law at its word and demand your rights

And so, much as I too want to "string 'em all up", I'll be voting in the next General Election. For me it's simple. See who's most likely to defeat Gordon's stooge and vote accordingly.

The Rule of Law - who needs that?

Let's imagine that you're a Cabinet Minister of a country that depends on international trade and finance to pay the taxes that keep it going. Or rather, to pay the taxes that keep your own party going. The one thing that you'd be most careful about was your country's reputation as a bastion of the rule of law.

Step forward Harriet Harman:

"Sir Fred should not be counting on being £650,000 a year better off as a result of this because it is not going to happen," she told BBC1's Andrew Marr show.

"The Prime Minister has said it is not acceptable and therefore it will not be accepted. It might be enforceable in a court of law this contract but it's not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that's where the Government steps in."

I repeat:

It might be enforceable in a court of law this contract but it's not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that's where the Government steps in

This is anarchy, some will say.

Not so. Under proper anarchy we would see the rule of law being rigorously enforced.

Of course Sir Fred has been a prat. Of course the directors of RBS should have reined him in. Of course RBS should have been allowed to go bust. But the law says that he's entitled to his pension, and that's that. God help us all if Harperson becomes Prime Minister.

Rand was right

I really don't care too much whether Ayn Rand was or wasn't a brilliant literary stylist. What matters is that she showed millions of people why freedom is right.

The world is in a mess today because too many people haven't read Rand.

Ma

Charlotte Elizabeth Farrer , always known as Betty.

Widow of David, mother of David, Carol and Susan, grandmother of Robin and Jenny, great grandmother of Ted.

Born 10th February 1922.

Passed away peacefully 25th February 2009.

RIP

Wealth of the nation

I'm having trouble linking to the precise quote in today's Scotsman but columnist Hamish Macdonnell wrote this:

But it does illustrate a wider point, and that is the core economic and political issue of who is best placed to decide how money is spent - the government or the people.

Oh dear. Can anyone really think that?

The core issue in politics may well be about who spends the wealth - the producers or the looters. But the core issue in economics is how is wealth created in the first place. That comes prior to how it is spent. And if too much of it is spent by the looters there soon won't be any wealth left.

Freedom and Whisky in the New York Times!

See here:

Headlines Around the Web

What's This?

Freedom and Whisky

February 15, 2009

Libertarianism and immigration

Film lives!

I recently dug out my old Nikon F80 and discovered that it contained a film that was 18 months old! Film still works, especially for wide-angle shots.

See here for the set:

Glasgow - West End
Originally uploaded by David Farrer

Libertarianism and immigration

It's obvious, is it not, that libertarians favour the free movement of people just as we favour the free movement of goods?

No, it's not.

As explained by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, there's a great difference between the free movement of goods and the free movement of people. Goods have a willing sender and a willing buyer. That's not the case with people. Libertarians do favour immigration controls: by the owner of each piece of property.

I see today that the Labour party is saying that under independence:

Passport controls would be introduced at Gretna and Berwick to restrict the movement of people into England if Scotland voted for independence, the Westminster government has warned.

Perhaps so, but this also implies that the movement of people from England into Scotland would be also restricted.

Once every piece of property is in the hands of its rightful owner we'll see just who is allowed to move where. But, in the meantime, I don't think that's it at all obvious that Scotland would necessarily be worse off than England in the event of border controls being introduced by governments.

The "Aspirational" Liberal Democrats

The cost of a day pass on Lothian Buses has gone up by 20%. Not to worry, the Lib Dems had an "aspirational" plan to stop this.

National Bankruptcy

On the Daily Mail's UK website last week I read this:

A quarter of all council tax is going to meet the soaring cost of the gold-plated pensions of town hall workers, it was revealed yesterday.

Taxpayer subsidies for the pensions of local authority staff topped £5billion last year, according to figures from the Department for Communities and Local Government.

But on the front page of the Scottish Daily Mail I read this:

The soaring cost of Scotland's town hall workers' gold-plated pension schemes now swallows a third of all council tax bills.

So in England it's a quarter and here in Scotland one third.

And we shouldn't just be looking at these high pension contributions. No, it's basic salaries too:

The pay gap between public- and private-sector workers in Scotland is five times bigger than for the UK as a whole, according to figures from National Statistics.

State earnings in Scotland are also considerably higher than across the UK as a whole. The average wage of a public-sector worker in Scotland has soared to £26,297 — £3,607 more than the typical salary of a private-sector employee.

This compares with average public-sector pay in the rest of the UK of £21,413, just £698 higher than the typical salary paid by a private firm.

And there's more.

The Lothian Pension Fund's contribution rate for employers is currently 18.9% on top of salary. From April this year the rate goes up to 20.8%. In 2010/11 it'll be 22.8% and in 2011/12, 24.9%. That's right, just about a quarter of basic salary will be added as a pension contribution in a couple of years time. So they're going to cost us around 2% extra each year even if they get no pay rises.

Interest rates...

...are now at minus 15.45%.

Granny mugging bastards.

Travellin' man

Lib Dem Andrew Reeves has been using public transport.

OK, quite an impressive schedule, and I confess that I too enjoy trips like that.

Early last year I went by train from Edinburgh to Glasgow and then got some kind of day pass that led me to Helensburgh, Hamilton and goodness knows where in between. I went into a fairly rough pub in Hamilton for my lunchtime pint. For some reason I was the only customer reading the Financial Times... The locals were looking at the Sun and Record. What I really remember about that pub is reading about the RBS rights issue and thinking that it might be worth a punt. Perhaps I had more than one pint and no investment followed. Thank God for Hamilton.

Of course in the old days I'd have thought travelling by train to be a bit wimpish. I recall attending an all-night party in Belsize Park and then going for a drive at eight the next morning. I ended up in Oban...

Brian Monteith on the Scottish pound

Is here:

Conservatives deserve better than the latest wheeze from the party leadership that is neither clever nor helpful.

At a time when the economic news in Britain has been going from bad to worse in very quick order one has to hope that the party that philosophically believes in the capitalist system, warts and all, might try to offer some explanation of why we are now entering the worst recession since the great depression of the 1930s and how free enterprise still offers the best hope for the future.

Unfortunately the best idea coming from the Scottish Conservatives has been for the party’s sole member at Westminster, David Mundell, to offer the hope that Scottish banknotes will be made legal tender across the whole of the UK. How that is expected to help pay someone’s mortgage in Biggar - or anywhere else in Scotland where no problem of using the notes exists - is a question the party leadership have obviously not thought to ask.

The Clydesdale MP hopes that his Private Member’s Bill will do the trick, although the irony of his timing is clearly lost on him. At the moment when the reputation of the Royal Bank and the Bank of Scotland could hardly be lower in Britain he announces a plan to force people to use their paper notes. The idea has clearly not been market tested – and would be unlikely to find favour with the many potential Tory voters in the rest of the UK that have seen their life savings and pensions based upon Scottish bank shares go down the toilet.

Had Scottish pound notes been real money then everyone would have rushed to hold Bank of England or Clydesdale banknotes - offloading those of the Royal Bank and Bank of Scotland that would have been considered to be near worthless. The result would have been a run on the two Scottish banks far worse than we have already seen forcing them both to be fully nationalised within a day.

I’m sure bringing home this economic reality was not what David Mundell intended.

The Conservative MP was happy to pose with Alex Salmond with a big Scottish bank note for the media. Again the irony was lost on this one man Conservative think tank. Alex Salmond not only supports the break-up of Great Britain he also supports the Euro becoming the Scottish currency and has recently been talking up that idea in Barcelona. Having a Euro would of course mean no Scottish banknotes, certainly none as we now know them saying the Scottish banks’ names on them. We would have Euros some of which might have thistles on them - but they would be Euros not Scottish pounds – authorised in Frankfurt to suit the German economy, not in Edinburgh and London to suit a British economy in which Scots play a disproportionately large role.

I’m sure giving aid and comfort to Alex Salmond’s goal of replacing the pound with the Euro was not what David Mundell intended.

But it gets worse, for when I consider what would happen if Scottish banknotes were made legal tender I find it hard to accept that the policy has been thought through beyond the initial photocalls and favourable headlines in the Scottish papers - for such a law is only likely to lead to the banknotes’ demise. Here’s why.

The three ‘Scottish’ banks - the Clydesdale (owned by the National Australia Bank), the Royal Bank of Scotland (now owned by the British Government) and the Bank of Scotland (now owned by the English Lloyds TSB Bank) - have the continuing ‘right’ to print their own banknotes so long as they are backed up by holding an equivalent amount in Bank of England notes.

The Scottish banks have to pay for this right, through the printing, transport and administration costs of the exercise, but for the moment are willing to swallow the overhead because it is worth it in marketing terms – and they are able to make money out of it.

Political and economic commentator Peter Jones explained it well in an intuitive article published in The Scotsman of 8 February last year. I only wish David Mundell had read it for Jones explained that: “Scottish bankers being clever types, they spotted that the value of their note issue was calculated on its value at the close of business on a Saturday. So they figured if they put the necessary deposits into the Bank of England on a Friday and took them out on Monday, the letter, if not the spirit of the law, would be complied with. Why do this? Because when their money is in the BoE, no interest can be earned on it, but for the other four days it can be deposited in an interest-bearing account, thus earning money for the note-issuing bank.”

The profit has been calculated to be £65 million for the Clydesdale alone – with far bigger sums for the two other Scottish banks.

If the Bank of England is forced to accept Scottish notes as legal tender surely we can expect it to demand that for the protection of everyone using them the notes are ALWAYS covered by the Scottish banks holding the equivalent value of the central bank’s own money.

With no profits to offset against them the production and administration costs would become a burden. So, while the Scottish notes would technically become legal tender they might be withdrawn from circulation when the Scottish banks find they can no longer afford them. True there is a marketing value to having the notes – but these are hard times and the pressure to find cost savings will be severe.

But don’t take my word for it, here’s what one senior Executive from a Scottish Bank told me when I asked about the policy: “If we force the issue on legal tender then the Treasury will simply demand that we lodge money with Bank of England at all times and it will then be cheaper to use bank of England notes rather than print our own. Scottish notes will simply disappear.”

I’m sure being responsible for the death of Scottish banknotes was not what David Mundell intended.

It’s known as the law of unintended consequences and it happens when policies are not completely thought through. But Alex Salmond thought it through – he could see where it will lead – towards more nationalist votes as the Conservatives put another nail in the Union’s coffin.

Sean Gabb on Gollygate

Should the BBC have sacked Carol Thatcher because she said in a private conversation that someone looked like a golliwog? No, says Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance. Jo Brand was investigated by the police for allegedly inciting criminal acts on BBC 1 against her political opponents. Carol Thatcher used a word. One gets the sack, the other the BBC's unconditional support. But, then, Jo Brand is part of the New Labour Establishment. Carol Thatcher is the daughter of a Prime Minister who still makes the ruling class shudder.

Also worth mentioning: Jo Brand is alleged to have incided criminal acts against members of the British National Party, and she is a declared supporter of the Labour Party. The Libertarian Alliance has no time for any form of collectivism, racial or otherwise. Even so, we note that the British National Party is *not* led by unindicted war criminals who have enthusiastically joined in the murder of half a million civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, who have abolished ancient civil liberties and turned the police force into a governing party militia, and who have taxed and regulated and inflated this country to the verge of collapse.

We also note that, while Margaret Thatcher's name is continually blackened by the pro-Labour BBC, she did none of these things either.

The BBC is a leading part of the ideological state apparatus that sustains the present ruling class. What it has done to Carol Thatcher is wholly in keeping with its real purpose.

A government advised by the Libertarian Alliance would abolish the BBC on its first day in office, dismiss all its employees, disclaim all its copyrights, and end all state regulation whatever of the airwaves.

Sean Gabb can be heard making some of these points on BBC Radio:

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/multimedia/2009-02-04-sig-thatcher.mp

Why things are screwed - Part 2

But it's not just the public sector.

At a different client on Wednesday last week I received a letter from a supplier saying that we owed them £74. Wednesday is the day I'm in and the day cheques get written. But of course I'm not going to write out a cheque just because someone's asking for money. I sent the supplier an e-mail explaining that we hadn't received an invoice and please send us one. There was no reply on that day.

This Wednesday I'm back in and there is a reply. Please can I supply our account number? Now, I've been around finance for a long time and if someone sends me an e-mail that identifies the customer and asks for a copy invoice it'll be out the door instantly. I once sent someone from London to Bradford to pick up a million pound cheque and then rush back down and take it to Lloyds Bank head office in the City. It's a long story but business is all about getting paid.

Back to this week. I send a reply giving our account number. A couple of hours later I get another e-mail telling me that they couldn't send me the invoice because I'm not recognised as an "admin user" of their system. I passed this information on to one of the directors who will no doubt get the invoice, perhaps for payment next week.

Incidentally, another invoice was received from these people this Wednesday. It came by post and was opened by the receptionist along with the rest of the mail and put into my in-tray. The receptionist isn't an "admin user" either but that invoice will get paid on time.

Why things are screwed - Part 1

One of my clients is largely funded from the public sector. A few weeks ago I sent an invoice to one of the funding organisations. This invoice was for less than 1% of the typical monthly charge to these people.

A couple of weeks ago I had a call asking if they could pay us through the "government's credit card system". The mind boggles... I told them that I'd never heard of such a thing, that we certainly didn't have one of these cards, and why not just send us a cheque. They couldn't do that and it was agreed that settlement would be made by BACS as with all of their other regular payments to us.

On Tuesday I had another call from a different gentleman wanting to finalise payment "through the government credit card scheme". Again I explained why that wasn't possible and that they'd agreed to pay by BACS. "Oh, he must have given me the wrong message! And I see that you're a regular supplier and are already set up on our BACS system. We'll pay you that way."

Roll on to Thursday. This time I get a call from a lady wanting to know our bank details. I gently explained that they already had these and that they'd sent us a payment around 100 times larger than the one being discussed only the previous day. That didn't matter: I had to send a fax giving the same bank details that they've been using for years. I suppose that we'll now get the money.

Serious Fraud

I see that Lib Dem leader Tavish Scott is calling for:

the Serious Fraud Office to launch an inquiry into a £12bn rights issue at RBS last April, which critics claimed misled investors into believing the bank was a good investment.

I fully agree with this proposal. But there's surely something else to consider.

The various foolish bankers who've lent so imprudently couldn't have done so if the extra money - around 14% last year - hadn't been created in the first place. Any investigation should consider the entire process of monetary creation. And that's something directly under the control of politicians and their lackeys.

Happy Birthday

Scotland, my old, respected mither!

Tho' whiles ye moistify your leather,

Till whare ye sit on craps o' heather,

Ye tine your dram,

Freedom and whisky gang thegither,

Tak aff your dram!

Not the Oscars

It's time for the Plook Award again:

Three towns are in the running to be declared the most dismal in Scotland in this year's Carbuncle Awards.

Motherwell, Glenrothes and New Cumnock have all been shortlisted for the award, dubbed the Plook on the Plinth

Previous "winners" and nominees have been suitably grim, as are this year's finalists. I don't suppose that these places being dominated by public sector development has anything to do with it...

Don't have a wooden Tsar?

Oh yes we do:

People in the Highlands can look forward to more opportunities to enjoy a healthier 2009 following Forestry Commission Scotland’s appointment of its first dedicated health champion.

Angus McWilliam has been appointed as the Highland Conservancy’s Highland Health Advisor, and started work in the Commission’s Dingwall office on January 6. He will work closely with local communities and organisations including NHS Highland, The Highland Council and Scottish Natural Heritage to promote the physical and mental health benefits of access to woods and forests

You what?

I must admit that I've always wondered what all of our wonderful Scottish scenery was actually for. Obviously not for people to take photographs. Oh no, that would never do. It seems that we are meant to walk in the countryside! I'd never have thought of that, would you? Thank God our taxes are being used to reveal this news to us.

All together now:

left, right;
left, right...

The English Empire

According to today's Scotsman, in tonight's John Adams programme on Channel 4 :

Congress votes to declare independence from England.

"England".

In 1776.

Oh dear...